2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

5,451 to 5,500 of 7,079 << first < prev | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
With that said, I don't see anything particularly objectionable about KG's "Hard Work Party," except by omission. One of the key points that distinguish modern Democrats from modern Republicans is the issue of protecting people's rights, particular the rights of vulnerable populations. Would the "Hard Work" party act to prevent states from disenfranchising minority voters? Would it act to make sure that schools in minority districts were fairly funded? Would it act to make sure that local police treated all citizens fairly? If these are among the "hot-button" topics that are left to the local governments to decide, then we've just allowed the racist dog whistles back into the "Hard Work" party.

Ideally, they'd be selling (and basing their platform on) the idea that anyone can succeed through hard work. To make that even remotely convincing, you'd need fairly-funded schools, equal treatment by police, no disenfranchisement of voters (except maybe if they're unemployed? I'm obviously spitballing here.) You could actually sell this even to the borderline racist contingent by explaining that you therefore favor and encourage "hard-working" minorities who "believe in the American way" (as opposed, in their tiny minds, to "thugs"), and of course you'd have no problem selling most of it (except maybe the no welfare votes) to Democrats.

When it came to issues like abortion and gay marriage, they'd fall back on Jesse Ventura's famous, "the supreme court already decided that, so I don't have to comment on it."

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Snowblind wrote:


What is the fundamentally good idea?
Government which governs best is that which governs least.

I loved Colbert's line at that Bush correspondents dinner:

"And by those standards sir you've set up a fine government in Iraq"


thejeff wrote:

Nah, he's collateral damage, right?

Who cares about the damage to LGBTQ kids? Or Latinos? Or Muslims? Or women?
And really Scott Adams? The whole "master persuader" thing? Scott's really gone down the rabbit hole.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

As a quote to support the position that Trump isn't the next Hitler, that bit from Scott Adams is pretty useless. It cuts out all his actual arguments (the other posts he references in which he supposedly explains mountains of credible evidence away as confirmation bias), leaving nothing behind but begging the question.

"Trump isn't the next Hitler, because that's unlikely, and if only some of us believe in something unlikely, it probably isn't true."

Peter Thiel, Milo Yiannopoulos, Justin Raimondo

All three are gay men. The first two are supporting Trump, the third is cheering him on.

None of them see this “gay conversion therapy” pink elephant. If they don’t see it, it isn’t there. If anyone can convince even one of those three men to see it, then I will accept I have been proven wrong.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
So you support Trump because of his willingness to start a twitter war with the 1%?
Guy Humual wrote:
I'm not sure how you figure Trump is at war with the 1%
thejeff wrote:

Yeah, the idea that Trump is the enemy of the 1% is kind of mindboggling.

Exactly! It is mindboggling.

Donald Trump was born into the 1%. He is a child of the elite. He has always been welcome in the inner circles of both political parties.

He lives in the same ultra-elite wealthy communities with their own private walls to keep the rest of us out.

And yet he turned around, and stabbed his own kind, my enemies, in the back.

It was glorious.

We are betrayed on a regular basis, but that rarely happens to the elite.

Donald Trump is a traitor to his class, and that is why I am voting for him.

Guy Humual wrote:
But supposing Trump is at war with them, you're suggesting that he's got some secret agenda to fight these people once in office? Like how he's planning to jail Hilary Clinton? I must say that as much as I dislike the Koch brothers I wouldn't want to see a special tribunal that's appointed to put them behind bars.

I have no idea if he has a secret agenda to fight them once in office. I just know he is fighting them tooth and nail right now. And as long as he does that I will back him.

Trump pledged that if President he would order his attorney general to investigate Hillary Clinton. That would be done through a special prosecutor, not a “special tribunal”. Special prosecutors handle it through our court system with the standard legal rights and protections. If Hillary Clinton broke the law, she should be prosecuted and a jury should determine her fate. The same thing for you, me, the Koch brothers and Donald Trump. That is called the rule of law.

Refusing to prosecute someone when they break the law is a violation of the rule of law.

Knight who says Meh wrote:
Yeah the 1% is really gonna hate all those tax cuts and deregulation that Trump is promising.
thejeff wrote:

But look at the numbers: How much would Trump's kids save from the estate tax cuts he wants? How much would the Koch brother's heirs? They might want someone more pliable, but they'll settle.

Billionaires don’t care about tax cuts and use trusts to evade estate taxes. They make far more money with their government contracts. Higher taxes to the government means more money available for billionaires looking to sell products and services to government.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
NPC Dave wrote:

All three are gay men. The first two are supporting Trump, the third is cheering him on.

None of them see this “gay conversion therapy” pink elephant. If they don’t see it, it isn’t there.

Top notch logic. "These three people who are all personally and financially invested in the success of this candidate don't publicly oppose him." As much as I enjoy the memes generated by Milo's antics, he's far from an objective reviewer of Trumps proposed policies, what few there may be.


NPC Dave wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
So you support Trump because of his willingness to start a twitter war with the 1%?
Guy Humual wrote:
I'm not sure how you figure Trump is at war with the 1%
thejeff wrote:

Yeah, the idea that Trump is the enemy of the 1% is kind of mindboggling.

Exactly! It is mindboggling.

Donald Trump was born into the 1%. He is a child of the elite. He has always been welcome in the inner circles of both political parties.

He lives in the same ultra-elite wealthy communities with their own private walls to keep the rest of us out.

And yet he turned around, and stabbed his own kind, my enemies, in the back.

It was glorious.

We are betrayed on a regular basis, but that rarely happens to the elite.

Donald Trump is a traitor to his class, and that is why I am voting for him.

Guy Humual wrote:
But supposing Trump is at war with them, you're suggesting that he's got some secret agenda to fight these people once in office? Like how he's planning to jail Hilary Clinton? I must say that as much as I dislike the Koch brothers I wouldn't want to see a special tribunal that's appointed to put them behind bars.

I have no idea if he has a secret agenda to fight them once in office. I just know he is fighting them tooth and nail right now. And as long as he does that I will back him.

Trump pledged that if President he would order his attorney general to investigate Hillary Clinton. That would be done through a special prosecutor, not a “special tribunal”. Special prosecutors handle it through our court system with the standard legal rights and protections. If Hillary Clinton broke the law,...

Threatening to prosecute your political opponents is hardly "the rule of law". It's standard third world dictatorship behavior - at least when they're pretending to observe the forms.

See him prosecute his allies when they break the law, that's the test.

It's not clear what your evidence of his war with the 1% is here, except that he's against Clinton - possibly just for political reasons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My understanding is that his budget plan involves tax cuts for the very wealthy - i.e. himself, and people like him - while shifting that burden onto the middle class.

I fail to see how this is even remotely close to stabbing the 1% in the back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
With that said, I don't see anything particularly objectionable about KG's "Hard Work Party," except by omission. One of the key points that distinguish modern Democrats from modern Republicans is the issue of protecting people's rights, particular the rights of vulnerable populations. Would the "Hard Work" party act to prevent states from disenfranchising minority voters? Would it act to make sure that schools in minority districts were fairly funded? Would it act to make sure that local police treated all citizens fairly? If these are among the "hot-button" topics that are left to the local governments to decide, then we've just allowed the racist dog whistles back into the "Hard Work" party.
Ideally, they'd be selling (and basing their platform on) the idea that anyone can succeed through hard work. To make that even remotely convincing, you'd need fairly-funded schools, equal treatment by police, no disenfranchisement of voters (except maybe if they're unemployed? I'm obviously spitballing here.) You could actually sell this even to the borderline racist contingent by explaining that you therefore favor and encourage "hard-working" minorities who "believe in the American way" (as opposed, in their tiny minds, to "thugs"), and of course you'd have no problem selling most of it (except maybe the no welfare votes) to Democrats."

As opposed to the current "Hard Work Party" which assumes that if you've succeeded, you must have worked hard and if you didn't, then you must not have.

Honestly, I don't think you could sell this to anyone really. Not enough to matter. First, you've got to pay for the better schooling and police work for the minorities. That's not going to go over well with the borderline racist crowd, much less the actual racist crowd. Especially when they have to help pay for it - cost of schools + loss in revenue from police harassment at least.

You might be able to sell Democrats on it when times are good, like we got sold welfare reform, but when the economy crashes, what happens to the unemployed?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm still not seeing how Trump has "betrayed the 1%." Because he wrote a mean tweet? He probably doesn't even remember that tweet at this point. Honestly, in my opinion, you sound like you support him simply because he's an a%+&!~*.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
NPC Dave wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Nah, he's collateral damage, right?

Who cares about the damage to LGBTQ kids? Or Latinos? Or Muslims? Or women?
And really Scott Adams? The whole "master persuader" thing? Scott's really gone down the rabbit hole.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

As a quote to support the position that Trump isn't the next Hitler, that bit from Scott Adams is pretty useless. It cuts out all his actual arguments (the other posts he references in which he supposedly explains mountains of credible evidence away as confirmation bias), leaving nothing behind but begging the question.

"Trump isn't the next Hitler, because that's unlikely, and if only some of us believe in something unlikely, it probably isn't true."

Peter Thiel, Milo Yiannopoulos, Justin Raimondo

All three are gay men. The first two are supporting Trump, the third is cheering him on.

None of them see this “gay conversion therapy” pink elephant. If they don’t see it, it isn’t there. If anyone can convince even one of those three men to see it, then I will accept I have been proven wrong.

And there were Jews who worked at the concentration camps burying the dead before it was their turn at the gas chambers.

And I've seen decades of Log Cabin Republicans waiting to be acknowledged by the Republican Party, while the latter still puts anti-LGBTQ stumpers as nominees, speakers, and convocators.

So your three gay men won't be the first or the last of the brides still waiting at the altar out there.

Pence's gay conversion isn't a a pink elephant.

Conversion therapy is a controversial practice that seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation from gay to straight. It’s banned in five states including California, Oregon, Illinois, Vermont and New Jersey.

When asked about the claim, Newsom’s spokesman pointed to Pence’s own words. During his first successful run for Congress in 2000, Pence wrote on his campaign website, under a section called Strengthening the American Family:

"Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior."

Also on the website, Pence wrote: "Congress should oppose any effort to put gay and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status with heterosexual marriage." And "Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexual’s [sic] as a 'discreet [sic] and insular minority' entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities."

Our research found no evidence Pence has walked back his stance on public funding for conversion therapy. His spokesman did not respond with information about Pence’s current position.

-Poltifact July 28, 2016


This reminds me of that scene in Spaceballs. I don't think I have to tell you which one. At least...I hope not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trump wants to stick it to the 1%...by lowering their taxes? How brave of him.

Not that it matters; he's highly unlikely to win the election anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And in what's probably the last of today's news, Trump didn't seem to do too well at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner (a common event for presidential candidates apparently involving a lot of roasting other people).


Rednal wrote:
And in what's probably the last of today's news, Trump didn't seem to do too well at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner (a common event for presidential candidates apparently involving a lot of roasting other people).

I'm 0% surprised...the man is a boor.


Rednal wrote:
And in what's probably the last of today's news, Trump didn't seem to do too well at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner (a common event for presidential candidates apparently involving a lot of roasting other people).

Please tell me someone hit an I phone in those giant hats..

oo look


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Of course, the "eliminate large corporate subsidies" plank would cut strongly into the amount of corporate money that would flow into the party coffers. That's basically the problem in a nutshell: the party you propose is essentially Republican-light ("A third less voters than the regular Republican party!")
It seems to me the Tea Party and the Sanders/OWS people actually have a lot in common on some issues; the party would be looking to capitalize on that. Republicans - 1/3 of the voters + the independents/superleft Democrats = possible win, if you sold it well.

I'd say the Tea Party and OWS do, not so certain about Sanders supporters.

I see the same thing in many ways. The both see that there is a lack of well paying jobs for those who are not upper middle class to upper class.

They both want to have meaningful wages and jobs BACK in the US rather than in other nations.

They both want the Wall Street Types to keep their companies (and hence jobs) in the US rather than exporting them to other nations and manufacturing things there.

They both think the upper echelons are corrupt.

I was surprised that we didn't see a strange alliance between the two when the OWS movement was particularly large and the cops were trying to disband them.

Ironically, instead, we saw a lot of the Tea Party encouraging the cops...rather than seeing that there was a LOT in common between the two.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

This election suddenly got better. Weird Al helped make a song based on the debates.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I was wondering to myself,[...] why all the black activists I've worked with over the past couple of years were Sanders supporters.
Sampling bias.

Thank you, I understand that "based on the people I know" isn't scientifically sound. Was surprised, however, to discover that "based on the people I know" ended up being in line with national trends.


Oh, crazy, Guardian article on the same question published today:

Why should we trust you? Hillary's big problem with young black Americans

Full disclosure: written by a contributor to Socialist Worker.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
It seems to me the Tea Party and the Sanders/OWS people actually have a lot in common on some issues; the party would be looking to capitalize on that. Republicans - 1/3 of the voters + the independents/superleft Democrats = possible win, if you sold it well.

I'd say the Tea Party and OWS do, not so certain about Sanders supporters.

I see the same thing in many ways. The both see that there is a lack of well paying jobs for those who are not upper middle class to upper class.

They both want to have meaningful wages and jobs BACK in the US rather than in other nations.

They both want the Wall Street Types to keep their companies (and hence jobs) in the US rather than exporting them to other nations and manufacturing things there.

They both think the upper echelons are corrupt.

I was surprised that we didn't see a strange alliance between the two when the OWS movement was particularly large and the cops were trying to disband them.

Ironically, instead, we saw a lot of the Tea Party encouraging the cops...rather than seeing that there was a LOT in common between the two.

I'm not surprised at all. As I said above, that anger at corporate elites is the only thing the Tea Party and OWS have in common. And in the Tea Party, it's largely been co-opted by anger at government.

The solutions they want are vastly different. OWS was for government support in many cases, safety net, WS regulation and breakup, housing market, etc. TP is against all that - wants the government out, let the banks fail etc.

And of course the Tea Party is largely rural and white, while OWS is urban and colored. Two different worlds. Anger driven by many of the same sources, but completely different responses.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
And in what's probably the last of today's news, Trump didn't seem to do too well at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner (a common event for presidential candidates apparently involving a lot of roasting other people).

A couple of his jokes were actually fairly funny.

"The media is more biased then ever this year. When Michelle Obama gave a speech, everyone praised it. When Melania gave the exact same speech, everyone criticized her for it."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
It seems to me the Tea Party and the Sanders/OWS people actually have a lot in common on some issues; the party would be looking to capitalize on that. Republicans - 1/3 of the voters + the independents/superleft Democrats = possible win, if you sold it well.

I'd say the Tea Party and OWS do, not so certain about Sanders supporters.

I see the same thing in many ways. The both see that there is a lack of well paying jobs for those who are not upper middle class to upper class.

They both want to have meaningful wages and jobs BACK in the US rather than in other nations.

They both want the Wall Street Types to keep their companies (and hence jobs) in the US rather than exporting them to other nations and manufacturing things there.

They both think the upper echelons are corrupt.

I was surprised that we didn't see a strange alliance between the two when the OWS movement was particularly large and the cops were trying to disband them.

Ironically, instead, we saw a lot of the Tea Party encouraging the cops...rather than seeing that there was a LOT in common between the two.

I'm not surprised at all. As I said above, that anger at corporate elites is the only thing the Tea Party and OWS have in common. And in the Tea Party, it's largely been co-opted by anger at government.

The solutions they want are vastly different. OWS was for government support in many cases, safety net, WS regulation and breakup, housing market, etc. TP is against all that - wants the government out, let the banks fail etc.

And of course the Tea Party is largely rural and white, while OWS is urban and colored. Two different worlds. Anger driven by many of the same sources, but completely different responses.

I think if early Tea Party met OWS they would have gotten along decently well. There was definitely a point before the crazy dominated the tea party that they could have at least realized they could be friends. A lot of people I know who supported the Tea Party early and fled also supported OWS.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Oh, crazy, Guardian article on the same question published today:

Why should we trust you? Hillary's big problem with young black Americans

Full disclosure: written by a contributor to Socialist Worker.

Clinton did a lot better job of answering that question to blacks than Sanders did. She stomped him on minority support over three to one.


Yes, but according to the exit polls cited in the NBC article above, black voters under 30 voted for Sanders 52% to 47%.

Which might not mean much in the grand scheme of things (apparently, they're expecting low turnout among such voters as compared with the two elections in which Obama ran), but it is what I was talking about.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Rednal wrote:
And in what's probably the last of today's news, Trump didn't seem to do too well at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner (a common event for presidential candidates apparently involving a lot of roasting other people).

A couple of his jokes were actually fairly funny.

"The media is more biased then ever this year. When Michelle Obama gave a speech, everyone praised it. When Melania gave the exact same speech, everyone criticized her for it."

Yeah, but if you go back and read jokes from previous years, they aren't all that great. Frankly I suspect he sold his funny bone with his soul, probably threw it in as a freebie.


Fergie wrote:

Dear "College Educated America", please take the pompous attitude and neo-liberalism that has been pucking over the vast majority for decades, and shove it where the sun don't shine.

You're welcome.
Sincerely,

People who work for a living.

A couple months old, but interesting nonetheless:

The Mythology Of Trump’s ‘Working Class’ Support
His voters are better off economically compared with most Americans.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Fergie wrote:

Dear "College Educated America", please take the pompous attitude and neo-liberalism that has been pucking over the vast majority for decades, and shove it where the sun don't shine.

You're welcome.
Sincerely,

People who work for a living.

A couple months old, but interesting nonetheless:

The Mythology Of Trump’s ‘Working Class’ Support
His voters are better off economically compared with most Americans.

Your article doesn't really support what you (or the headline) wants it to say.

* First, it's an article of primary voters, which even the article admit is not a representative sample.
* This shows up, in turn, in the observation that almost all candidates in all states have voters with a median income higher than the state. "Poor people don't vote," to which I would add "especially in primaries."
* However, when you control for those effects, Trump draws from a significantly more working-class group than either of the other Republican candidates. Nearly half of his primary election supporters make less than $50k per year, compared with less than a quarter for Kasich, for example.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
A couple of his jokes were actually fairly funny.

Ah, yes. The she's-so-dumb-it's-ok-for-me-to make-her-the-butt-of-my-jokes-while-she-sits-here-and-has-to-pretend-that-i t's-all-in-fun funny.

Nothing like being humiliated by your spouse in front of a national audience.


But does he draw a more significantly working-class group than the Democratic primary candidates?

Based on, as I said, months-old data presented in this article, it doesn't look like it, but I am sure there other articles and other polls.

I guess I just take umbrage at a letter to "The (White?) Working Class" from a "College-Educated" poster who pops up every election cycle to suggest that we need to raise the Social Security retirement age in order to balance the budget.

[Shrugs]


CrystalSeas wrote:

Ah, yes. The she's-so-dumb-it's-ok-for-me-to make-her-the-butt-of-my-jokes-while-she-sits-here-and-has-to-pretend-that-i t's-all-in-fun funny.

Nothing like being humiliated by your spouse in front of a national audience.

She's probably used to it by now (same as Hillary, Huma, and many other women who have husbands in politics*). If not, she can go cry on a gold plated toilet, or sable fur coat, or whatever. Trump is a total piece of S for doing it, but I have no sympathy for her, or any of the other women who support Trump.

*There are some distinct exceptions.

When you help make a s@~% sandwich, you get to enjoy the first bite.


Here are some numbers.
Lots more on next page
Not sure if they broke it up by income, but from a quick glance, it looks like white men is the big Trump demographic.

EDIT: I suspect there is a big difference between being a registered Dem or Rep, and leaning toward one party or the other, especially in this election.
vvvv-------------------vvvv
EDIT2: Bugleyman: I can't seem to find any numbers related to college educated white men supporting trump. I checked Bloomberg, but it was a mess. Is there a site you recommend?


Fergie wrote:

Here are some numbers.

Lots more on next page
Not sure if they broke it up by income, but from a quick glance, it looks like white men is the big Trump demographic.

EDIT: I suspect there is a big difference between being a registered Dem or Rep, and leaning toward one party or the other, especially in this election.

As it happens, he tends to win among white men without a college degree, but lose among those with a college degree.

Take that for what you will.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

But does he draw a more significantly working-class group than the Democratic primary candidates?

Based on, as I said, months-old data presented in this article, it doesn't look like it, but I am sure there other articles and other polls.

I guess I just take umbrage at a letter to "The (White?) Working Class" from a "College-Educated" poster who pops up every election cycle to suggest that we need to raise the Social Security retirement age in order to balance the budget.

[Shrugs]

Would you consider modifying retirement ages based on job type? For example, do you think it might be okay to ask accountants to work for an extra few years to reduce costs, so we can afford to care for pipe fitters?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

But does he draw a more significantly working-class group than the Democratic primary candidates?

Based on, as I said, months-old data presented in this article, it doesn't look like it, but I am sure there other articles and other polls.

I guess I just take umbrage at a letter to "The (White?) Working Class" from a "College-Educated" poster who pops up every election cycle to suggest that we need to raise the Social Security retirement age in order to balance the budget.

[Shrugs]

Would you consider modifying retirement ages based on job type? For example, do you think it might be okay to ask accountants to work for an extra few years to reduce costs, so we can afford to care for pipe fitters?

I'd say no. Pretty much on the way to nitpicky and subject to manipulation.

And even desk jockeys run into age discrimination and get laid off and can't get hired again.
Also, we don't actually need more people working longer. That's not the problem we're facing.


Irontruth wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

But does he draw a more significantly working-class group than the Democratic primary candidates?

Based on, as I said, months-old data presented in this article, it doesn't look like it, but I am sure there other articles and other polls.

I guess I just take umbrage at a letter to "The (White?) Working Class" from a "College-Educated" poster who pops up every election cycle to suggest that we need to raise the Social Security retirement age in order to balance the budget.

[Shrugs]

Would you consider modifying retirement ages based on job type? For example, do you think it might be okay to ask accountants to work for an extra few years to reduce costs, so we can afford to care for pipe fitters?

It is far more common for someone to wind up leaving their job involountarily than looking to retire early. Because retiring is s&#@ in America if you're not well off. Delaying benefits like this is just rubbing salt in the wound. I can attest personally that I was turned down for a job solely because of my age... and that was a decade ago.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Those damn Fergies, always getting arrested!
"A Wisconsin woman described in reports as “drunk” and “yelling profanity” is accused of bursting into a meeting she thought was a Trump rally to yell about Donald Trump. When she was asked to leave, she allegedly used peanut butter to smear “phallic symbols” and curse words on several vehicles. ..."
Sounds about right.


Irontruth wrote:
Would you consider modifying retirement ages based on job type? For example, do you think it might be okay to ask accountants to work for an extra few years to reduce costs, so we can afford to care for pipe fitters?

That would be pretty blatantly unconstitutional ("equal protection" and all that), and would involve the government pretty deeply in looking at the minutia of individual jobs in a way that would bother nearly everyone. After all, not all pipe fitting jobs are created equal, and the pipe fitters that spend most of their time in the office filling out the paperwork are nearly as safe as accountants.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Would you consider modifying retirement ages based on job type? For example, do you think it might be okay to ask accountants to work for an extra few years to reduce costs, so we can afford to care for pipe fitters?

That would be pretty blatantly unconstitutional ("equal protection" and all that), and would involve the government pretty deeply in looking at the minutia of individual jobs in a way that would bother nearly everyone. After all, not all pipe fitting jobs are created equal, and the pipe fitters that spend most of their time in the office filling out the paperwork are nearly as safe as accountants.

Social Security already treats people differently based on jobs.


I thought the "pardon me" joke he did was actually pretty funny. But honestly, he just lost it and went into "vote for me" mode for the rest. That seems to be his Achilles' heel this election. I honestly think if Trump had just been crazy for the primaries THEN shut his puckered mouth for the second half, he would be doing much better.


Spastic Puma wrote:
I thought the "pardon me" joke he did was actually pretty funny. But honestly, he just lost it and went into "vote for me" mode for the rest. That seems to be his Achilles' heel this election. I honestly think if Trump had just been crazy for the primaries THEN shut his puckered mouth for the second half, he would be doing much better.

Well, then he wouldn't be Trump. So either way, he was doomed.


Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I'm not surprised at all. As I said above, that anger at corporate elites is the only thing the Tea Party and OWS have in common. And in the Tea Party, it's largely been co-opted by anger at government.

The solutions they want are vastly different. OWS was for government support in many cases, safety net, WS regulation and breakup, housing market, etc. TP is against all that - wants the government out, let the banks fail etc.

And of course the Tea Party is largely rural and white, while OWS is urban and colored. Two different worlds. Anger driven by many of the same sources, but completely different responses.

I think if early Tea Party met OWS they would have gotten along decently well. There was definitely a point before the crazy dominated the tea party that they could have at least realized they could be friends. A lot of people I know who supported the Tea Party early and fled also supported OWS.

I'm not sure when you mean by "early", but it was pretty crazy by the time it hit the big time.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
"NPC Dave wrote:

Check his Twitter feed

So you support Trump because of his willingness to start a twitter war with the 1%?

Seeing all you people jump all over that guy, slamming him left and right for nothing at all is making me want to vote for Trump just to spite you all.

This is why Paizo is (rightly) perceived as an liberal echo chamber.


Majik Mouf wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
"NPC Dave wrote:

Check his Twitter feed

So you support Trump because of his willingness to start a twitter war with the 1%?

Seeing all you people jump all over that guy, slamming him left and right for nothing at all is making me want to vote for Trump just to spite you all.

This is why Paizo is (rightly) perceived as an liberal echo chamber.

Oh for crying out loud, perceived by whom? I am extremely skeptical that anyone with any political power whatsoever thinks they should stay away from the Paizo off topic message boards because our opinions are biased.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Majik Mouf wrote:
Seeing all you people jump all over that guy, slamming him left and right for nothing at all is making me want to vote for Trump just to spite you all.

Hmmm, someone earlier in the tread voiced support for Hillary based on people pointing out her flaws. Maybe this is a new trend in politics?

I primary slammed Trump for his past and more recent racist role in the Central Park Five case. You are welcome to defend Trump for those actions...

EDIT: The link I posted did not include Trumps recent comments about the case. Here is another article:
Donald Trump and the Central Park Five: the racially charged rise of a demagogue
And an op-ed specifically about Trump doubling down, despite DNA evidence and a confession by the person who actually committed the crime.
Why Trump Doubled Down on the Central Park Five


Ah yes. You all hate him so much and so reasonably that I should definitely vote him into the highest office in the land.

A reasonable and valid position.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I too base my voting decisions off of spiting pseudonymous posters on a tabletop rpg website. Gotta teach them a lesson. It's really the only way to go.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Majik Mouf wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
"NPC Dave wrote:

Check his Twitter feed

So you support Trump because of his willingness to start a twitter war with the 1%?

Seeing all you people jump all over that guy, slamming him left and right for nothing at all is making me want to vote for Trump just to spite you all.

This is why Paizo is (rightly) perceived as an liberal echo chamber.

Also, gamers tend to be on the left because of several factors:

1: We tend to be college educated or pro-intellectual.
2: We tend to dislike pointless scare tactics due to the 'Satanic Panic' being so ridiculous.
3: We tend to be less religious, or take our religions as less dogma and more ideals.
4: We tend to be outcast socially on some level, leading to a feeling of connection with others who are outcast.

Combine all of that with a company who intentionally attempts to foster understanding and acceptance of alternate lifestyles, particularly LGBTQA lifestyles. Then add in one candidate who attempts to push away anyone who is not White Cishet Uneducated Male and yes. Yes we do not like him. What a shock...


Trump's lawyers say it's unfair to judge Trump for the things he said


Majik Mouf wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
"NPC Dave wrote:

Check his Twitter feed

So you support Trump because of his willingness to start a twitter war with the 1%?

Seeing all you people jump all over that guy, slamming him left and right for nothing at all is making me want to vote for Trump just to spite you all.

This is why Paizo is (rightly) perceived as an liberal echo chamber.

So asking someone why they support Trump is jumping all over them?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Stop! You must not hop on pop!

5,451 to 5,500 of 7,079 << first < prev | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards